General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGetting back to basic facts in the next Hillary ‘scandal’
By Paul Waldman April 21 at 12:19 PM
You might think that by now, Blockbuster Clinton allegations on the way! wouldnt exactly be a headline to rouse breathless anticipation in anyone who isnt already a committed Republican. But as we have now learned, theres a new book coming out that supposedly could transform the presidential race with charges of corruption involving the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clintons tenure as secretary of state.
Color me skeptical, to say the least, but heres what the New York Times reports:
Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, by Peter Schweizer a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.
The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clintons State Department in return.
We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds, Mr. Schweizer writes.
His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donors natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.
The book wont be released until May 5, and unfortunately, that last paragraph is all thats been said publicly about the specifics of what it contains. But the essence of its argument seems to be that Bill and Hillary were running a corrupt operation: foreign interests would give money to the Clinton Foundation, and in return would get favorable treatment from the State Department. When the book comes out, were going to have to be very careful to sift through its charges to see whats actually troubling and whats based on coincidence and conjecture. When it comes to allegations about the Clintons, the media doesnt exactly have a good track record of making these distinctions.
There are a couple of basic facts to keep in mind to set the context. The first is that the Clinton Foundation gets donations from all over the world, including foreign governments. Its entire model relies on the fact that Bill Clinton can get a meeting with anyone, anywhere, and convince lots of them to fund the foundations activities in areas like public health and climate change. Its donors have included many foreign governments (including Saudi Arabia, Norway, Kuwait, and the Netherlands) and a long list of corporations, both American and foreign.
The second fact is that the U.S. State Department deals with every country on earth in one way or another, and many countries get favorable treatment from us. If youre going to show that theres something corrupt going on, youll need a lot more than the fact that a government gave a donation to the Clinton Foundation and later got something it wanted from the State Department.
more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/21/getting-back-to-basic-facts-in-the-next-hillary-scandal/?wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)"I have no smoking gun or evidence of any wrongdoing". But that won't stop the media from making this fraud a millionaire.
still_one
(92,190 posts)everything they got, just like they did by giving the "swift boaters", all the free coverage in the world, without having to prove their accusations.
Yes, our wonderful media, which was a willing partner in lying us into the invasions of Iraq.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)And more meh.
It'll be a 48-72 hour story for chuckleheads on cable news but not enough to puncture the collective indifference for Clinton scandals by the general public.
At some point you reach diminishing returns with using Clinton scandals as a bludgeon against them. And in this case that was about 1998-99.
If we all had a nickel for every breathless report of the "one to bring them down" over the last 30 years we'd all be as rich as they are.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Media Matters is already exposing the liar
too bad NYT and WAPO are being used like this too
still_one
(92,190 posts)multiple verifications from independent sources before publishing a story.
They have no integrity to day. Probably are using USA Today, or more likely the National Enquirer as their model of good reporting.
Just listening to the accounts of Judy Miller going around pushing her book that her excuse was, everyone else was doing it. What a lame, arrogant person to take no responsibility for their failures. No wonder she works for Murdoch now, just like the typical modern day republican, they rewrite history.
How do you know if a republican is lying? If their lips are moving
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)still_one
(92,190 posts)Stewart to interview her
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Yes, Jon would eviscerate the lying war monger.
MADem
(135,425 posts)shit at Hillary Clinton down the years that they could post pictures of her sitting down to a dinner of stuffed roasted infant and no one would bat an eye.
I think people want to discuss the issues, not crab about her husband, her pantsuits, her voice, her hair or other bullshit. If someone is saying "Ooooh la la" and trying to get me upset about HRC, I'm going to wave them off. I've got "scandal fatigue." In fact, the more they try, the less I'm moved. It becomes a way to deliver a big "Fuck You" to just ignore them.
But I will get up off my ass and vote for her, donate to her campaign, and drive other people to the polls so they can vote for her, too!
William769
(55,147 posts)BTW, they only make her stronger.